Draft Pre-View Up

[HornetsGM]

These retro drafts have left a lot to be desired. I thought the point of them was to reinfuse the league with talent...

actually it wasn't.  The computer generated names could have been improved if it was to reinfuse the league with talent.  It was to create interest and nostalgia, nothing more.

revisionism


also, are the potentials still randomized or not? Or did Sampson get the D special treatment?

[GoldenStateGM]

Hey, it even fits with Sampson's career...
His best year was arguably his rookie year, and by the age of 28 he was coming off the bench...

[HornetsGM]

I disagree that reinfusing talent was not a goal of the retro drafts. I specifically recall discussions about how teams trying to build through the draft weren't able to because the drafts were so bad; these retro drafts were put in to make those teams competitive. There is nothing less interesting than the same teams being able to maintain dominance with the same players year after year. I remember advocating stronger drafts even when I was a top team (competing with all orginal players.)

I don't argue that people fall off in real life, but outside of Sampson there are not really any impact players in this draft (LaFrentz looks ok). Crippling the only clear impact player is not conducive to the goal of maintaining interest in the league and leveling the playing field.

Also, am I mistaken, or were potentials previously randomized? I think it would be unfair to make the decision to give Sampson a D potential when potentials haven't been interefered with in the past.

[NetsGM]

revisionism

I'm glad that you're telling me the objectives I had....could you tell me why i'm making other decisions in my life as well?

No, the argument came up once that the original retro draft was too strong, at which point I said I thought we could use a good year or two.  But that's not we switched to the retro draft.

As for the randomized potentials, I have no idea.  I didn't make this draft file.  I also didn't say that Ralph's D potential was deliberate.  Like I said, I didn't make the draft file.  What I did say is that it would be bad for the league if Ralph was an A potential.  You can look back at my original posts in this thread.  I'm just echoing that, nothing else.

This is one draft.  The league isn't going to become uninteresting with one draft.  Are you arguing about the strength and depth of the past drafts?  You can't have that every year.  I'd also be interesting in rehashing the comments of the draft classes that the star players of today came in.  I'll guarantee you (I know, because I took the heat for the draft classes) that the classes were criticized.

[HornetsGM]

No, the argument came up once that the original retro draft was too strong, at which point I said I thought we could use a good year or two.  But that's not we switched to the retro draft.

Well you can gloss over this if you want; the fact that you mention it now and try to downplay it speaks to something. Frankly I don't have the time or patience to go back and look over the discussions, so I'm not going to try -- take that as you'd like. I am almost positive that the point was brought up that this league was one of "haves and have-nots", where the "haves" had the great original players and players from the first couple of drafts.

Hopefully things will equalize once those players are out of the league.

I'd like to see some spreadsheets to see how the past few drafts have compared to these. I lost most of my info, so I can't speak to that.

In any event, I realize that my vision of things is colored by my position, so you don't really have to take me seriously if you don't want to, because I kind of don't myself. It's really just my frustration with getting two pretty crappy (in my opinion) drafts in a row where I had top picks.

[NetsGM]

Well you can gloss over this if you want; the fact that you mention it now and try to downplay it speaks to something. Frankly I don't have the time or patience to go back and look over the discussions, so I'm not going to try -- take that as you'd like. I am almost positive that the point was brought up that this league was one of "haves and have-nots", where the "haves" had the great original players and players from the first couple of drafts.

Yup.  We have had those discussions.  They've had nothing to do with the real players, however.  We've been having those discussions since the FBCB generated draft files.  Making the players based on real life players was an addition based on nostalgia.

Once again, I (strongly) disagree with the notion that the last two were crappy.  Like I previously mentioned, this year there's 11 guys scoring 10+ ppg, all of them doing it with decent+ defense, and most of them with potential.  As for this draft, I think a few things need to be taken into consideration:
- It was HawksGM's first time making a draft file.
- Nobody has any idea how it's going to turn out.  Nobody's even started scouting potential yet.

Also, trying to rebuild quickly through the draft is always a quick proposition.  Sure, there are times where it works (Cleveland, San Antonio), but there are also teams that try for years and years, and fail miserably.

[HornetsGM]

Only 2 guys in the top 10 in scoring are under 30 (realistic?). Frankly, I don't find 10 ppg from a rookie all that thrilling. Everyone knows that stars are required in FBB, and the drafts have generated precious few stars (or at least scorers).

[Str8westcoasta]

Only 2 guys in the top 10 in scoring are under 30 (realistic?). Frankly, I don't find 10 ppg from a rookie all that thrilling. Everyone knows that stars are required in FBB, and the drafts have generated precious few stars (or at least scorers).

I don't want stars out of draft pools... I want potential stars! No-one should be A rated in anything or even A-. Good solid draft should be the way forward

[HornetsGM]

Only 2 guys in the top 10 in scoring are under 30 (realistic?). Frankly, I don't find 10 ppg from a rookie all that thrilling. Everyone knows that stars are required in FBB, and the drafts have generated precious few stars (or at least scorers).

I don't want stars out of draft pools... I want potential stars! No-one should be A rated in anything or even A-. Good solid draft should be the way forward

I don't really understand your point. The drafts for the last 5-8 years (with the exception of a scant few players) have produced neither stars nor potential stars. I'm not arguing that guys should come in and immediately score 30ppg, but time has shown that these drafts have not produced scorers --> look at the league leaders! Is this all simply a product of "unrealized potential", or is the more logical explanation that the drafts have been weak? Doesn't the fact that there are only 2 guys under 30 in the top 10 in scoring drain your statement of any meaning?

[NetsGM]

A few things.
- Your original argument was (outside of the top player in the draft, the draft's aren't deep).  Are we talking about depth now, or top talent?
- I think it might be a little off to look just at scoring.  If you look at rebounding (6 of the top 10 are 30 or under) or assists (7 of the top 10 are 30 or under), there's a different picture.  Star is not necessarily defined by scoring.
- If you look at the top scorers, it takes quite a while for them to progress to that point.  Gatling went from 20, to 22, to 24, to 26, to 30 ppg.  Very deliberate.  Dwight Howard didn't score 20 ppg until his 6th year in the league.  If he was in one of the last few draft classes, he'd be complained about.  Quincy Peters didn't score 20 ppg until his 11th year in the league.   Barton O'Connell only scored 20 ppg once before 9th year in the league.  His 9th and 10th years have both been career years scoring.  Bertram Shultz didn't score 21 ppg until his 8th year in the league.  Richard Milner didn't score 20 ppg until his 6th year in the league.   Jeff Robertson as well.

I think that right there drain's your statement.  The guys who are in the top 10 now, weren't in the top 10 five years ago.  Scoring has historically taken the longest to develop.  These same criticisms (all top scorers being old) was the same criticism's made 8 sim-years ago when the people leading the league today didn't lead the league in scoring. Scoring has historically taken the longest to develop, and these players are producing in other areas.

Is this all simply a product of "unrealized potential"

I think the past history and current league leaders do show this, yes.

Only 1 rookie in the NBA this year scored more than 12 ppg.  Only 5 scored 10 ppg.

[GoldenStateGM]

Two of my players, who are retro players, very well may be in that top 10 in scoring in the next couple years..
Both Phill Hubbard and Don Collins have improved in scoring every year, and both are averaging over 20 ppg.

If they both continue improve incremantally, they will be top 10 in scoring very soon.
It just takes time for the players to develop...

[KingsGM-old]

Frankly, I don't find 10 ppg from a rookie all that thrilling.

Forget it. I gave up long time ago. They're in love with role players. God forbid the next Yao, Pettit, Mcgrady, Emeka, Jermaine, Shaq, Dirk, Marion etc. Who cares?

[HornetsGM]

A few things.
- Your original argument was (outside of the top player in the draft, the draft's aren't deep).  Are we talking about depth now, or top talent?
- I think it might be a little off to look just at scoring.  If you look at rebounding (6 of the top 10 are 30 or under) or assists (7 of the top 10 are 30 or under), there's a different picture.  Star is not necessarily defined by scoring.
- If you look at the top scorers, it takes quite a while for them to progress to that point.  Gatling went from 20, to 22, to 24, to 26, to 30 ppg.  Very deliberate.  Dwight Howard didn't score 20 ppg until his 6th year in the league.  If he was in one of the last few draft classes, he'd be complained about.  Quincy Peters didn't score 20 ppg until his 11th year in the league.   Barton O'Connell only scored 20 ppg once before 9th year in the league.  His 9th and 10th years have both been career years scoring.  Bertram Shultz didn't score 21 ppg until his 8th year in the league.  Richard Milner didn't score 20 ppg until his 6th year in the league.   Jeff Robertson as well.

I think that right there drain's your statement.  The guys who are in the top 10 now, weren't in the top 10 five years ago.  Scoring has historically taken the longest to develop.  These same criticisms (all top scorers being old) was the same criticism's made 8 sim-years ago when the people leading the league today didn't lead the league in scoring. Scoring has historically taken the longest to develop, and these players are producing in other areas.

Is this all simply a product of "unrealized potential"

I think the past history and current league leaders do show this, yes.

Only 1 rookie in the NBA this year scored more than 12 ppg.  Only 5 scored 10 ppg.

I find it disingenuous to switch "30 or over" to "30 or under":

6 of the top 10 in rebounds are 30 or over
5 of the top 10 in assists are 30 or over
7 of the top 10 in blocks are 30 or over
7 of the top 10 in steals are 30 or over

In his 4rd year in the league, Gatling was scoring 27 ppg
In his 3rd year in the league, Keogan was scoring 26 ppg
In his 1st year, Garrett Pettit scored 25 ppg

Magic Johnson, probably the best product to come out of the retro drafts (and statistically the best scorer), is scoring 23.5 ppg in his 4th year and has D potential.

Do you have spreadsheets of the very first few drafts? I'd like to see a comparison between them and the current draft, for comparison's sake. Otherwise we will both have to use this haphazard anecdotal kind of 'evidence'. It's no way to go about it. (btw, I don't have excel, so a cut/paste would be more helpful)

[NetsGM]

I find it disingenuous to switch "30 or over" to "30 or under":

How can it be disingenuous?  We're both just picking a random number as our starting point that has no real significance.  I picked a different random number.

So now we've switched the argument to "the players who are good entering the league don't have good enough potential"?  So before you were a proponent of random potentials.  Are you now saying that we should manually change potentials as well?

I don't believe I have the old draft file spreadsheets.  I'll try to check some backups I have.

FYI:
http://www.openoffice.org/

Free ms-compatible office programs.  It's what I'm using now that I run Linux full-time.  Works great.

[HornetsGM]

I find it disingenuous to switch "30 or over" to "30 or under":

How can it be disingenuous?  We're both just picking a random number as our starting point that has no real significance.  I picked a different random number.

First of all, it's not random; secondly, you cannot deny that your switcharoo would be misleading to a person who did not read it carefully -- if you are trying to compare the leading scorers to the other categories, you should compare it using the same methods. It's disingenuous to use a different number (subtly) for comparing one category to another category. It's too early for me to think of a good analogy for what you did - maybe later.

So now we've switched the argument to "the players who are good entering the league don't have good enough potential"?  So before you were a proponent of random potentials.  Are you now saying that we should manually change potentials as well?

I never made this argument. My statement regarding Sampson was directed towards consistency. My overall argument is that the drafts are subpar.

FYI:
http://www.openoffice.org/

Free ms-compatible office programs.  It's what I'm using now that I run Linux full-time.  Works great.

Thanks man, I'll download it.


Anyway, I don't know if I feel like arguing this anymore. I suppose that as long as the drafts stay at a consistent talent level things will equalize eventually in a few more years. It will still be difficult for the really bad teams to recover quickly enough for their GMs to maintain strong interest, imo. That's my bottom line -- strong drafts promote competition and competition increases interest. There's nothing worse than a team that has been stuck in the lotto year after year. This cannot be attributable to bad GMing alone -- a large part of it is the lack of talent in the drafts. I feel sorry for the teams that were in the lotto during the FBCB years; my point is that these retro drafts are not much better.